[GNC] Report from Chicago - No. 4 : 2008 PLATFORM IS REJECTED

[John Andrews]

Report from Chicago
Report No. 4
from John Andrews, 7/18/08

Green Party National Convention,  July 11, 2008

2008 PLATFORM IS REJECTED

After approving the Credentials Committee report, the Green Party national
convention turned to approval of the 2008 Platform.  Three members of the
Platform Committee introduced different sections of the Platform.  Then
about 10 people were allowed 3 minutes each to give short statements about
the Platform.  The first sign of real trouble came when the Latino Caucus
blasted the Platform for containing the following statement:

"Guest worker programs, when workers wish to work in the US
but do not want to be forced to give up their citizenship in their
home countries, and when workers are not seeking a path to US
citizenship, must adequately protect the rights of these workers."

The Latino Caucus charged that guest worker programs were "a modern form of
slavery" and that the Green Party platform should not contain any
implication that they could be made acceptable.  Later, Hugh Esco, a
delegate from Georgia who is active in the McKinney campaign, took the
microphone and again charged that if the platform were approved, the Green
Party would be endorsing "slavery".

A second objection arose over a statement in the section on the Middle
East.  It read "We oppose the imposition of a one-state or two-state
solution by outside powers. The resolution of their conflict, whatever form
is finally decided, must be arrived at by the Palestinians and Israelis."
It was agued that this statement implied simple parity between the claims of
the Palestinians and Israelis, and allowed Palestinian rights to be subject
to veto by the Israelis.

The rules of the convention did not allow the Platform to be modified by a
floor vote.  It could only be approved in its entirety or rejected in its
entirety.  A rejection would authorize the Platform Committee to relabel the
2004 platform as the current platform, in effect adopting a platform that is
four years old.

Members of the Platform Committee stated that they were supportive of making
changes to address the objections that were being raised on the floor.  But
they said that such objections had not been brought to them during the
period when the Platform was out for review (Although I heard that some
relevant comments had been received.).  Rather than discard all the work
done since 2004, they suggested that the platform be approved and that the
points in dispute be worked out after the convention. (Note:  The process
for such post-convention amendment wasn't clear to me.)

A roll call vote was held.  A two-thirds majority was required for
approval.  The vote was 184 yes,  295 no,  and 52 abstain.  So the new
platform was rejected.

The 2004 platform will continue as the Party's platform.  This platform
contains no clear statement on guest worker programs.  At one point it says
"A fair and equitable legalization program will provide equal access to
working people of all nationalities, not tied to a specific employer or
guest worker program."  This seems to imply that guest worker programs will
continue as part of U.S. policy.  So it isn't clear that reverting back to
the 2004 platform resolved the concerns of the Latino Caucus.

END OF REPORT
---------------------

ADDENDUM

Personal commentary from J. Andrews:

The rejection of a platform is not a good outcome for the Green Party.  It
means we must live with an outdated platform.  It discourages volunteers
from spending time working on the Platform Committee.  And it sets a
precedent for using the platform as a football to be kicked around in
accusatory floor fights.

Prior to the convention I had read through the 40 pages of single-spaced
text in the 2008 Platform.  I was very impressed with the many important and
well-stated positions it contained.  I was thinking that perhaps it could be
adopted in some form as a platform for our state party.  I realized that no
document of this length would win complete approval from all delegates (I
myself spotted a few places where I would have written things differently.)
But I felt that overall, it was a powerful statement of the new politics
that the Green Party was offering to the nation.

I supported changing the wording to address the concerns expressed on the
floor of the convention.  But the up-or-down vote was a problem. I wondered
if it might not be better to have an imperfect platform than no platform at
all.

I did not find the argument credible that the Platform was "endorsing
slavery".  In fact, I found this claim needlessly divisive and insulting to
the volunteer greens who had worked hard to update the platform.  The
sentence in question was intended to advocate increased protection for
workers, not to advocate enslaving them.  What seemed to be missing was a
clear statement against guest worker programs.

Similarly, the objection to the sentence on the Middle East was mostly
symbolic and a result of a deliberately negative interpretation of the
wording.  The clear thrust of the platform toward respecting Palestinian
rights did not seem to me to be brought into question by the wording of that
specific sentence.

At times I had the uneasy feeling that the platform fight was simply the
weapon of choice for some faction that wished to punish the Platform
Committee.  But I didn't have an opportunity to fully investigate all the
cross-currents.

For the future, it might help to let the Platform Committee revise the
platform text as a result of petitions received right up to the day of the
convention.  This could resolve most late objections, especially those that
were based on some negative interpretation of the phrasing of a sentence.
Hopefully, things will go more smoothly in 2012.